• Foreclosure: summary judgment inappropriate where bank failed to refute homeowner’s affirmative defense that bank failed to provide notice of acceleration thirty days prior to filing mortgage foreclosure complaintKurian v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No. 4D11-3098 (Fla. 4th DCA April 10, 2013) (reversing final summary judgment of foreclosure) [Ed. Note: motion for rehearing pending; subject mortgage contained no notice requirement]
  • Foreclosure: trial court erred in dismissing case as sanction for discovery violations because it failed to make express factual findings demonstrating that such a severe sanction was warranted Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co. v. Sela, No. 4D11-3093 (Fla. 4th DCA April 10, 2013) (reversing dismissal) [Congratulations to Carlton Fields Shareholders Michael Winston and Dean Morande, who represented the appellant in this matter]
  • Restrictive Covenants: homeowners association cannot enforce restrictive covenants unless it is an assignee of the developer’s right to enforce restrictive covenants or is the direct successor of the developer’s interest; because developer previously assigned rights to prior association, which never re-assigned rights, developer could not subsequently assign same rights to another association Nieto v. Mobile Gardens Assoc. of Florida, 2D11-4958 (Fla. 2d DCA April 12, 2013) (reversing final judgment and permanent injunction)
  • Injunctions: mandatory injunction ordering landlord to restore tenant’s possession of premises was unwarranted where (i) it was doubtful parties had a meeting of minds on essential terms of so-called lease, (ii) agreement fell short of requisite certainty for purposes of obtaining mandatory injunction, and (iii) finding of “wrongful” eviction was insufficient to support injunction because the injunction order failed to address whether tenant had an adequate remedy at lawBlue Earth Solutions v. Florida Consolidated Props., LLC, 5D12-1436 (Fla. 5th DCA April 12, 2013) (reversing entry of temporary injunction)
  • Statute of Limitations: school board’s suit for specific performance and breach of contract, which resulted from settlement agreement requiring landowner to convey parcel to school board by June 15, 2005, was barred by applicable statutes of limitation because (i) prior suit by school board seeking parcel that did not meet the settlement agreement’s terms did not toll the statute of limitations and (ii) the last element of school board’s cause of action accrued when landowner refused to convey parcel in 2005, and not when school board finally demanded a parcel consistent with the terms of the settlement agreement in 2010 – Langley Limited P’ship v. Sch. Bd. of Lake Cnty., Florida, No. 5D12-2044 (Fla. 5th DCA April 12, 2013) (finding claims time-barred and reversing final judgment)
  •